Monday, September 30, 2013

There is more than some confusion about the IPCC process. Ethon has tried explaining this on several occasions, but, perhaps at this time another try would help. First there are those who accuse the IPCC of being political, second those who object to the idea that the IPCC achieves a consensus. Ethon would simply point out that that is the plan, not the problem.

Now some, not Eli to be sure, might wonder why politicians and political scientists are mystified that the IPCC Summary for Policy Makers has political and policy implications. The answer is simple, every single sentence is unanimously approved by over 170 nations, each of which has a delegation consisting of politicians, policy makers and scientists.

So, as Sherlock Holmes might say, the absence of dissenters is a sure sign of a consensus.

But how was that consensus achieved? After all there are loose canons out there, some of them have oil, some coal and some nuts. Some statements have been modified to placate all of these, but the basis remains. Well, that is design. Consider, for example the Consensus Oriented Decision Making Model

Framing the topic

Open Discussion

Identifying Underlying Concerns

Collaborative Proposal Building

Choosing a Direction

Synthesizing a Final Proposal

Closure

and compare this with the IPCC process. Good match there.

To summarize, the IPCC achieves consensus by design of its process. It ain't rocket science. Folks know how to design such processes. The IPCC at the highest level includes policy makers and politicians, but first achieves a scientific consensus before they get to put their oar in. The policy makers then modify and approve the final consensus, line by line in the action document, the Summary for Policy Makers (as Eli puts it, really the Summary FROM Policy Makers).

So, the bunnies ask, why is there no stomping of feet and refusing to agree. Well for one, nations don't like to look like idiots (that's the good news) and for two the reports merely show that the world is screwed without requiring actions to unscrew it (that's the bad news).

26 comments:

Anonymous
said...

Eli,

In addition to your observation, there are multiple other problems with Roger Junior's latest attempt to spin the results from AR5.

Funny, "spin" is what Roger Junior is (wrongly) trying to accuse the IPCC of doing ;) Well not "funny" really, because that is how disingenuous folks like Roger play. If anything, they are a predictable bunch.

Roger strikes down some fabricated straw men, makes demonstrably false claims, misrepresents the IPCC AR4, laments how he and his dad's genius has been ignored and how mean people have been to his dad. His post reads a bit like a self-involved soap opera.

More soon, but I encourage other bunnies to find the problems with the contents of Roger's latest spin fest.

Imagine spewing all of that and then having to watch the victim deliver another report, perfectly intact.

"Futile pipsqueak." Not a comfortable costume.

Dismaying as that must be for Pielke, what's even more dismal is that Pielke is gifted with our amnesia. He's still quoted by people who ought to know better, if they showed any sign of having a function hippocampus.

Tol, too. He was one of the enthusiastic witch hunters but-- by golly-- he's actually in the fold of IPCC. Truly flabbergasting.

J. Bostrom, The choices are 1)inside the tent pissing out (albeit with very poor aim)2)outside the ten pissing in

It sort of puts the lie to the accusations of groupthink and confirmation bias.

Particle physics has physicists who don't believe in quarks. In the past, physics has had physicists who didn't believe in physical reality. A climate scientist who doesn't believe in climate science seems par for the course.

Still, it bothers me is that Pielke and Tol can make specious accusations and ultimately pay effectively no penalty in credibility. Both of these fellows enthusiastically fostered character assassination of Pachauri by promoting false accusations and rumors but now it's as though none of that happened. They lent their authority to a fictitious characterization of Pachauri, a characterization shown to be wrong, yet their authority is undiminished. Pielke and Tol are still accorded the privilege of attention and polite (mostly) discourse as though they were the equals of people who are more attached to truth, more reliable, ultimately more useful.

Contrition would fix this problem but it's not forthcoming. I'm not sure the realpolitik of the climate fiasco entirely accounts for Pielke and Tol's failure to humbly apologize, or some accounting by the community at large for their failure.

Tol's inclusion in IPCC may well rebut arguments about the organization excluding "outsiders" but looked at from a different perspective IPCC may be said to be including people with tattered credibility. Is that a smart choice, when the IPCC itself is routinely attacked for being untruthful?

Ultimately, science is about a faith that truth is stronger than lies, stronger than ignorance and stronger than ego. I freely admit that that is a faith-based proposition, but it is a proposition that is supported by all of the evidence over the long haul. Call it an axiom of science.

Science is not predicated on the morality of its practitioners. They are human. They are fallible. All of them. However, it has never worked to try to purge science to make it purer. Even if such movements start from pure motives, they lead to dead ends. There are rules--no plagiarism, no fabrication or manipulation of data, etc.. They are ruthlessly enforced. Being nice isn't one of the rules.

Ultimately, science takes our prejudices, vanities and ambitions, and by alloying them with our curiosity, it produces a pretty damn good approximation of truth. Often it makes us better people as well. Curiosity is the true philosopher's stone.

HI Eli,I am concerned about Ethon's tendency to use a very wide brush for tarring. Wanted you to know I'm back, so partially just self-publicity, but honestly, I'd welcome your response...http://whogoeswithfergus.blogspot.co.uk/

The art of this stuff is crafting loopholes, eventually, to avoid paying one's share of some cost long externalized. Over time, piecemeal, a cost that's been zero -- externalized -- gets noticed. Eventually it gets defined.Cost comes home to roost, one way or another.

By that point the skills whetted in arguing "anything but CO2" or "anything but the IPCC" get applied with precision to carving out loopholes for some much narrower constituency.

Look at healthcare; the "medical device" tax loophole in the process of being created.

The argument always comes down to 'not my cost' == starting from 'no such cost' to 'can't prove it' to 'can't quantify it' to 'can't be me'.

The truth of the matter is that the Pielkes have manipulated the facts/truth, at least in some of their posts on blogs and on their own blogs.

"Science is not predicated on the morality of its practitioners."

I agree, but there is a problem in the real world because the people fighting against the science and policy know that public perception on these issues is predicated by the perceived morality of the scientists.

It is a loophole that the Pielkes and McIntyres and McKitricks, Currys, Moranos, Basts, Novas, Inhofes, Singers and Moncktons of the world love to take advantage of, even if it means fabricating opportunities.

It might be a good idea to distinguish between Pielke Jr. and Sr. The former is the slippery one who occupies center stage in promoting the likes of extreme fossil fuels as "bridges" to inaction with the clever lukewarmism.

Now I'm probably, as often, shooting from the hip without enough care for words, so please excuse any hyperbole.

Make Money Online is very easy now, In Internet system we have now best earning system without any work, Just Invest some Money into your Business and Make Perfect Life time Earnings with this Business.Join Now for Make Perfect Business and Earn Money online from home.www.hotfxearnings.com

Rabett Run

Subscribe Rabett Run

The Bunny Trail By Email

Contributors

Eli Rabett

Eli Rabett, a not quite failed professorial techno-bunny who finally handed in the keys and retired from his wanna be research university. The students continue to be naive but great people and the administrators continue to vary day-to-day between homicidal and delusional without Eli's help. Eli notices from recent political developments that this behavior is not limited to administrators. His colleagues retain their curious inability to see the holes that they dig for themselves. Prof. Rabett is thankful that they, or at least some of them occasionally heeded his pointing out the implications of the various enthusiasms that rattle around the department and school. Ms. Rabett is thankful that Prof. Rabett occasionally heeds her pointing out that he is nuts.